GitTyee

1. What is this?

A high-level, very casual, and often self-deprecating look at trends in catches of Tyee salmon in Campbell River’s legendary Tyee Pool. All data exploration is being completed for fun and to learn some new tools (namely R Markdown and plotly).

There are far more technical ways of examining this data, but they aren’t as much fun - and are frankly hard. This analysis is living and will evolve over time. All results and interpretation are purely speculative and should be considered nothing more than ramblings of a fish nerd.

Normally this is where I would put pictures of all the beautiful Tyee I have captured, but that hasn’t happened yet. So far, these are the best things I have managed to get in my boat

## [1] FALSE

1.1 The Data

I have compiled the following datasets to use in this analysis. Whether they are all incorporated is yet to be seen.

1. Annual catch records from the Tyee Club.
2. Angling effort and undersize fish catches from Tyee Club yearbooks (2019 to 2022).
3. Discharge data collected on the Campbell River by the Water Survey of Canada.
4. Annual Chinook Salmon escapement data available in the DFO NuSEDS database.
5. Annual catch statistics from the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission.
6. Area based commercial catch statistics from DFO are available from 2001 to 2016
7. Straight of Georgia herring spawn and catch data.
8. Southeast Alaska commercial catch data from North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission.
9. Hatchery release statistics from North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission.
10. Known ocean ranges of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead stocks
11. Chinook survival data prepared by Welch et al. 2020

This is certainly an interesting dataset, especially given it is the centenary of the Tyee Club, but it has its limitations. For example, there is no accessible information on effort (# boats per day), biological data (e.g. size, girth and age of tyees) or numbers of non-tyee salmon captured in the pool.

Download TyeeCatchData.zip

2. Let’s look at the Tyee catch data!

There are lots of ways to look at this data. I am most curious about three things:

1. How total catches vary among years and if they fluctuate relative to escapement.

2. When are Tyees most frequently captured?

3. Has fish size changed across seasons? Does fish size vary within seasons?

2.1 Total catches across years.

Figure 1: Trends in Tyee Salmon captures and Campbell River Chinook Salmon escapement.

A quick look at Tyee catches (blue vertical bars) in Figure 1 shows:

1. There is a fairly clear 4-year cycle of relatively higher catches (highlighted with shading). Which is interesting, and raises lots of questions…
2. There has been a consistent decline in the number of Tyee salmon captured per year.
3. There was a major crash or failure in 2014.

If we look at Escapement data (blue line) shown in Figure 1 , we can see:

1. There has been a general declining trend in escapement (consistent with regional trends),
2. Periods of increased escapement correspond with periods of increased Tyee catches, but not always (e.g. 2005, 2017 and 2020). Given the lack of information on effort (e.g. # of boats fishing per day) we cannot tease apart whether the lack of catches in some years is due to reduction in pressure.
3. It is also possible that years with high escapement and low Tyee numbers were due to an increased proportion of smaller fish returning to the Campbell. Without annual information on age structure I cannot tease this apart.

Now, lets see when fish are most frequently captured throughout the season, and if there has been a change over time.

2.2 Cumulative catches per year.

Let’s take a look at how cumulative catches compare within decades.

Figure 2: Cumulative tally of Tyee’s captured by decade.

Lots of variability in total catches per year across the decade, but overall mean catches per decade are decreasing steadily from ~47 in 2000’s, to ~27 in 2010’s and 19 in 2020’s.

2.3 Effort and catches of undersize fish.

The Tyee club weighmaster has been recording the number of boats fishing morning, noon and evening tides, as well as the number of undersize fish captured throughout the season. This data has been recorded for ~8’ish years, however, data is only publicaly available from 2019 onwards.

Table 1. Summary of undersize catches and effort from 2019 to 2022.

	# Fish Captured				Mean Capture Probability
Year	Tyee	Undersize	Total	Total Boats	Tyee	Undersize	Overall
2019	13	181	194	2204	0.317%	4.09%	4.41%
2020	14	108	122	2337	0.300%	2.82%	3.12%
2021	36	210	246	2461	0.747%	5.75%	6.49%
2022	6	86	92	2136	0.113%	2.10%	2.21%

2.4 When fish are most frequently captured.

The Tyee season runs from July 15 to September 15. I need to pick my battles with my wife and boss. Let’s see which days I should be fighting for!?

2.4.1 First Tyee of the Year

Let’s see when the first Tyee are most frequently captured each season. Alright, looks like I should have fished tonight (August 1) and need to fish August 6. Note that values for August 2 and August 7 are somewhat misleading as the plot is showing the number of fish captured on opening day.

Figure 3: Number of Tyee captured on date when first Tyee is registered.

2.4.2 When the most Tyee’s are captured each year.

Figure 4: Total fish captured by date and decade

This plot will become a lot more interesting once I can get my hands on some historical data. But for now, we can see:

• People either do not fish, or do not catch fish before late July/early August. Given the way catches increase through August I am thinking it is the latter.
• Peak catches occur in mid to late August.
• August 18-19 is a must fish kind of day.
• Good luck on July 30.

OK, well now we know not to bother fishing until early August, that I should book the off the last 3 weeks of August and that odds are that 2023 is not going to set a new record for most Tyee’s captured. But who knows.

2.5 Does fish size vary within or between seasons?

Figure 5: Mean annual weight of Tyee Salmon captured since 2002.

So overall mean fish size is relatively consistent across years. That’s good news, but maybe there are better ways to look at this data. Bar plots can be deceptive.

Figure 5: Mean annual weight of Tyee Salmon captured since 2002.

Well that is a bit better. The overall mean size of Tyee has stayed relatively stable across years, which makes sense given there is a minimum size limit for Tyee - but there also appears to fewer bigger fish being captured each year.

Figure 6: Weight of Tyee salmon caught per day since 2002.

What a mess. Pretty hard to identify any relationships from that figure.

2.5.1 Historic fish size trends.

Historic catch record data is available back to 1923, but only for newly registered members. So any fish captured by existing members are excluded. Either way, the data set still includes over 2880 records and offers a peak into the historic size range of fish captured in the Tyee pool.

If we plot the mean weight for each year we get the figure below which shows a fairly strong decreasing trend in fish size since about 1950.

Figure 7: Mean annual weight and SE of all fish recorded in the record book since 1923.

Given the variability in the number of fish that were captured each year, lets try to standardize the process by selecting a random sample of 10 fish from each year (or all fish if less than 10 were registered in a year). This produces the figure below. Which also shows a strong decreasing trend in fish size since the late 1940’s and early 1950’s.

Figure 8: Mean annual weight and SE of 10 randomly selected fish recorded in the record book since 1923.

2.6 Daily catches per year.

To round this out, let’s just have a look at the total number of fish caught per day over the past 20 years.

Figure 4: Total fish captured by date and decade

Without additional data there is not much else to look at. So let’s change gears and start poking around at what may be contributing to observed patterns in catches and size.

2.7 Who’s who in the zoo?

Let’s have a look at who has been catching the most fish! First we will look at who has caught the most fish in the past 5 years, then we will have a look at all the data.

Table 2. Number of fish captured and rowed by anglers and guides since 2018.

		Total Tyee	Tyee Rowed							Tyee Angled
Member	Rank	(Rowed + Angled)	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Total	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Total
Mike Stutzel	1	17	1	1	1	5	2	4	14	1	1	0	1	0	0	3
Peter Wipper	2	7	0	0	1	2	1	2	6	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Mike Dougan	3	6	1	1	1	1	1	1	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Maegen Dougan	4	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	5
Mike Newton	4	5	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	2	3
Mike Mackie	6	4	2	1	0	1	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Paul Curtis	6	4	0	0	1	1	0	0	2	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
Paul Pearson	6	4	0	0	1	1	0	0	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Bob Main	9	3	1	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Bruce Herkes	9	3	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	2
Darla Hunt	9	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	3
Floyd Ross	9	3	0	1	1	0	0	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jim Clowes	9	3	0	0	0	1	1	0	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Mark Thulin	9	3	1	0	0	1	0	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nathon Miller	9	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	3
R.D. Berger	9	3	1	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Randy Killoran	9	3	0	0	0	1	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Reid Herkes	9	3	0	1	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Rick Janzen	9	3	0	1	0	1	0	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Trevor Gains	9	3	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Yari Ivanisko	9	3	1	0	1	0	0	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Brett Gardner	22	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Burt Campbell	22	2	0	0	0	1	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Greg Askey	22	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
John Woodward	22	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Jules LaCroix	22	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Karen Hutton	22	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	2
Ken Duke	22	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ken Enns	22	2	0	1	1	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ken Mar	22	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Mark Trenholm	22	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Morris Trace	22	2	0	0	0	1	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ric Dionne	22	2	0	0	1	1	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Richard Holman	22	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Rick Joubert	22	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rob Austin	22	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Roma Boutilier	22	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	2
Steve Spiers	22	2	1	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tim Hanika	22	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	2
Tyson Berkenstock	22	2	1	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Walter Stutzel	22	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	2
Allyn Harvey	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Amaro Lozano	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Andrew Rippingale	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Aren Knudsen	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Ben Campbell	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Beth Newton	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Betty Gage	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Bob Barrett	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Bob Joseph	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Brady Thulin	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Brodie Doherty	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Bruce Aikmen	43	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bruce Preston	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Bryan Rickert	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Carole Beaudoin	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Chris Nicholas	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Chris Sheilds	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Clayton Stoner	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Cyena McIntosh	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Dan Hatch	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Dan Heaven	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Darrell Mustard	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Dave Lavigne	43	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dave Ludvigson	43	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dave Nutt	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Dave Soper	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
David Duke	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
David Nutt	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
David Richter	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Davin Saunders	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Dawn Hamilton	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Diana Clowes	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Don Syroid	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Doug Ellis	43	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dustin Marsh	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Dwayne Mustard	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dyson Ivanisko	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Forrest Owens	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Gary Lawson	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Gary Soles	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
George Deagle	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Gerald Hinsberger	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Glen Daradics	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Glen McIntosh	43	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Grant Rosswarne	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Grayden McInnes	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Greg Main	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Jaret Knowles	43	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jeremy Maynard	43	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Joe Boutilier	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
John Bentham	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
John Chalmers	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
John Plant	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
John Todd	43	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Judy Janzen	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Kalla Shields	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Kalyn Sutherland	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Karren Hutton	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Klaus Weger	43	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Landon Mackie	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Laurie York	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Lisa Nicholas	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Lyndon Duke	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
MacKenzie Collins	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Mark Lagos	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Mike Hamilton	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Miles Latrace	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Monique Weeks	43	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Montagu Lee	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Nathan Boutilier	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Nathan Lagos	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Paula Davies	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Raeya Mackie	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Reaya Mackie	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Reg Mackenzie	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Rich Fryer	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Rick Hackinen	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rick Tillapaugh	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Rob Turko	43	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Robi Gareau	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Roger Gage	43	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ross Spiers	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rowen Berkey	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Roy Grant	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ryan Newton	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Sarah Deagle	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Scott Laird	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Sean Batty	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Shane Roberts	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Terry Blasco	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Tim Samuels	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Tom Hooge	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Trevor Erickson	43	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Troy Perras	43	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Trygg Carlson	43	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

A total of 83 fish have been registered since 2020, or which Mike Stutzel has captured 13 or 16%. In the current dataset, nobody has stats like that! Randy caught (rowed or angled) the most fish in the 2000’s (n = 23 of 384 registered) and 2010’s (n = 15 of 268 registered), but his fish represent 6% of the total catch in each decade. Mike, if you read this and feel like rowing around some deadweight give me a shout!

Note though that this summary does not include Tyee that were recorded but not registered (e.g. fish captured or released by non-registered anglers).

Table 3. Number of fish captured and rowed by anglers and guides who have caught more than 5 Tyee, per decade since 2002.

		Total Tyee	Tyee Rowed				Tyee Angled
Member	Rank	(Rowed + Angled)	2000’s	2010’s	2020’s	Total	2000’s	2010’s	2020’s	Total
Randy Killoran	1	41	23	15	2	40	0	0	1	1
Ken Mar	2	33	22	6	1	29	3	0	1	4
R.D. Berger	3	28	20	7	0	27	0	0	1	1
Paul Curtis	4	26	14	4	2	20	4	0	2	6
Jeremy Maynard	5	24	16	8	0	24	0	0	0	0
John Woodward	6	23	11	5	1	17	4	2	0	6
Ross Spiers	7	22	12	9	1	22	0	0	0	0
Chris Plamondon	8	20	11	1	0	12	8	0	0	8
Mike Mackie	8	20	5	13	1	19	1	0	0	1
Roy Grant	8	20	12	7	1	20	0	0	0	0
Mike Stutzel	11	19	0	3	12	15	0	3	1	4
Reid Herkes	11	19	13	4	1	18	0	0	1	1
Peter Wipper	13	18	1	9	6	16	1	0	1	2
Jim Clowes	14	17	9	5	2	16	0	1	0	1
Norm Lee	15	16	8	5	0	13	1	2	0	3
Floyd Ross	16	15	4	3	2	9	4	2	0	6
Ken Enns	16	15	5	3	1	9	5	1	0	6
Bill Tomicki	18	14	0	0	0	0	9	5	0	14
John Barker	18	14	5	4	0	9	2	3	0	5
Shara Berger	18	14	0	0	0	0	13	1	0	14
Burt Campbell	21	13	5	4	2	11	2	0	0	2
Mike Kauertz	21	13	2	4	0	6	5	2	0	7
Mark Thulin	23	12	2	8	2	12	0	0	0	0
Paul Breukers	23	12	9	1	0	10	2	0	0	2
Brant Peniuk	25	11	8	1	0	9	2	0	0	2
Peter Kruse	25	11	10	1	0	11	0	0	0	0
Tim Samuels	25	11	0	0	0	0	6	4	1	11
Troy Winslow	25	11	1	0	0	1	7	3	0	10
Jules LaCroix	29	10	0	3	0	3	0	7	0	7
Klaus Weger	29	10	3	6	0	9	0	1	0	1
Travis Trace	29	10	6	1	0	7	3	0	0	3
Bill Idiens	32	9	5	1	0	6	2	1	0	3
Chris Cook	32	9	2	2	0	4	3	2	0	5
Fred Gerl	32	9	1	4	0	5	2	2	0	4
Lisa Woodward	32	9	0	0	0	0	5	4	0	9
Dale Kashuba	36	8	0	0	0	0	1	7	0	8
Gene Berkey	36	8	7	1	0	8	0	0	0	0
Joe Painter	36	8	2	3	0	5	1	2	0	3
Monique Weeks	36	8	4	2	0	6	2	0	0	2
Morris Trace	36	8	3	1	2	6	2	0	0	2
Dale Blackburn	41	7	3	2	0	5	2	0	0	2
Neil Cameron	41	7	6	1	0	7	0	0	0	0
Bruce Herkes	43	6	2	0	1	3	1	1	1	3
Greg Askey	43	6	0	1	1	2	0	3	1	4
Harry Thulin	43	6	0	0	0	0	2	4	0	6
Mike Dougan	43	6	0	2	4	6	0	0	0	0
Peter Winter	43	6	3	3	0	6	0	0	0	0
Phil Griffith	43	6	1	3	0	4	2	0	0	2
Rick Janzen	43	6	0	4	2	6	0	0	0	0
Sean Kiley	43	6	5	1	0	6	0	0	0	0
Ted Milbrandt	43	6	2	4	0	6	0	0	0	0
Yari Ivanisko	43	6	0	4	2	6	0	0	0	0
A.J. Larsen	53	5	5	0	0	5	0	0	0	0
Bob Main	53	5	0	2	0	2	0	3	0	3
Brett Gardner	53	5	0	1	2	3	0	2	0	2
Bruce Aikmen	53	5	2	3	0	5	0	0	0	0
Darrell Knowles	53	5	3	1	0	4	1	0	0	1
Dave Hadden	53	5	2	3	0	5	0	0	0	0
Dean Bell	53	5	0	0	0	0	5	0	0	5
Karen D’Alessandro	53	5	0	0	0	0	5	0	0	5
Ken Fletcher	53	5	4	1	0	5	0	0	0	0
Maegen Dougan	53	5	0	0	0	0	0	1	4	5
Mike Netzel	53	5	0	0	0	0	4	1	0	5
Mike Newton	53	5	0	0	2	2	0	0	3	3
Paula Davies	53	5	0	0	0	0	1	3	1	5
Ric Dionne	53	5	1	0	2	3	2	0	0	2
Robert Hobbs	53	5	0	0	0	0	5	0	0	5
Robin Modesto	53	5	0	3	0	3	0	2	0	2
Stuart Wolfe	53	5	2	0	0	2	3	0	0	3

Looks like I need to try to get on with Randy Killoran too!

So nobody feels left out, here is a summary of all fish registered since 2002.

Table 4. Number of fish captured and rowed by anglers and guides who have caught less than 5 Tyee, per decade since
2002.

		Total Tyee	Tyee Rowed				Tyee Angled
Member	Rank	(Rowed + Angled)	2000’s	2010’s	2020’s	Total	2000’s	2010’s	2020’s	Total
Andrew Rippingale	70	4	1	2	1	4	0	0	0	0
Bill Herkes	70	4	4	0	0	4	0	0	0	0
Bill Ostler	70	4	0	1	0	1	2	1	0	3
Brian Isfeld	70	4	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	4
Bruce Walton	70	4	3	0	0	3	1	0	0	1
Corinne Wolfe	70	4	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	4
Darcey Houser	70	4	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	4
Dick Knowles	70	4	2	0	0	2	2	0	0	2
Don Swoboda	70	4	0	0	0	0	3	1	0	4
James Wolfe	70	4	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	4
John Todd	70	4	0	3	0	3	0	1	0	1
Justin Horsman	70	4	0	3	0	3	1	0	0	1
Karin Plamondon	70	4	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	4
Mark Lagos	70	4	0	3	1	4	0	0	0	0
Paul Pearson	70	4	0	0	2	2	0	0	2	2
Sean Kelly	70	4	0	0	0	0	3	1	0	4
Shauna Schmitke	70	4	2	0	0	2	2	0	0	2
Shauna Towriss	70	4	0	0	0	0	2	2	0	4
Steve Spiers	70	4	0	3	1	4	0	0	0	0
Todd Peachey	70	4	0	2	0	2	2	0	0	2
Troy Perras	70	4	0	3	0	3	0	0	1	1
Bob Joseph	91	3	2	0	0	2	0	0	1	1
Brady Thulin	91	3	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	3
Brian Kruse	91	3	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
Brigid Pomeroy	91	3	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	3
Chris Gauthier	91	3	1	1	0	2	1	0	0	1
Darcy Gerhard	91	3	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
Darla Hunt	91	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3
Dave Soper	91	3	0	1	1	2	0	1	0	1
Don McPhee	91	3	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
Doug Ellis	91	3	0	3	0	3	0	0	0	0
Ed Fellbaum	91	3	1	1	0	2	1	0	0	1
Gary Soles	91	3	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	3
George Minosky	91	3	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
George Reifel Jr.	91	3	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
Joe Watson	91	3	3	0	0	3	0	0	0	0
John Chalmers	91	3	0	0	0	0	0	2	1	3
Karen Hutton	91	3	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	3
Ken Duke	91	3	0	1	2	3	0	0	0	0
Kevin Gunning	91	3	2	1	0	3	0	0	0	0
Landon Mackie	91	3	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	3
Larry Dougan	91	3	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	3
Matthew Blackburn	91	3	2	0	0	2	1	0	0	1
Mike Benjestorf	91	3	0	3	0	3	0	0	0	0
Mike Patterson	91	3	1	0	0	1	2	0	0	2
Mike Rankin	91	3	3	0	0	3	0	0	0	0
Nathon Miller	91	3	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	3
Rick Hackinen	91	3	0	2	1	3	0	0	0	0
Roger Barriault	91	3	0	1	0	1	0	2	0	2
Roger Gage	91	3	0	2	0	2	0	1	0	1
Sharon Fisher	91	3	0	0	0	0	2	1	0	3
Steve Babcock	91	3	1	2	0	3	0	0	0	0
Steve Clayton	91	3	0	0	0	0	2	1	0	3
Stuart Haigh	91	3	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
Trevor Gains	91	3	0	0	2	2	0	0	1	1
Walter Schoenfelder	91	3	3	0	0	3	0	0	0	0
Al Frumento	126	2	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1
Anthony Mar	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Ben Campbell	126	2	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	2
Bill Cosulich	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Bob Hammond	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Bradley Mah	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Bruce Kirby	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Bruce Middleton	126	2	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
Carole Beaudoin	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2
Carter Coblenz	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Chad Atkinson	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Chel Bassoni	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Chris Brotherston	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Chris Nicholas	126	2	0	1	1	2	0	0	0	0
Clyde Bergendahl	126	2	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1
Dan Plamondon	126	2	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1
Daniel Bell	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Dave Ludvigson	126	2	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Dave Wardell	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
David Davis	126	2	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
David Duke	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2
David Stover	126	2	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1
Deb Idiens	126	2	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
Debra Herkes	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Dick Patterson	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Don Hutchison	126	2	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1
Edward Painter	126	2	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1
Ernest Anderson	126	2	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1
Gary Brettnacher	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Geoff Bertram	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
George Reifel Sr.	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Gerald Hinsberger	126	2	0	1	1	2	0	0	0	0
Gordon Berkey	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Gordon Dawson	126	2	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1
Gordon Gerl	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Gordon Killoran	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Graham Rawlins	126	2	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1
Harley Plamondon	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Harold Larson	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Jan Brettnacher	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Jeff Morrison	126	2	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1
Jeff Spence	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Jeremy Bell	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Jim Spiers	126	2	1	1	0	2	0	0	0	0
Joe Boutilier	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Joe Cameron	126	2	1	1	0	2	0	0	0	0
John Cronkite	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
John Duncan	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
John Simson	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Judy Janzen	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Ken E. Enns	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Kevin Chase	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Kevin McAughtrie	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Kim Prystupa	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Kurt Franz	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Lee Deslauriers	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Leonard Steingarten	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Mark Murphy	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Mark Trenholm	126	2	0	0	2	2	0	0	0	0
Martin Buchanan	126	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	0	0
Mathew Blackburn	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Mickey Kiley	126	2	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1
Mike Hamilton	126	2	0	1	1	2	0	0	0	0
Mike Mcmann	126	2	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
Mike Tomczyk	126	2	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1
Mike Woods	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Nathan Lagos	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2
Parker Wong	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Pat Dodman	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Pat Kiley	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Paul McDonald	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Rich Chapple	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Richard Gage	126	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	0	0
Richard Holman	126	2	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1
Rick Gunn	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2
Rick Joubert	126	2	0	0	2	2	0	0	0	0
Roanne Dunbar	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Rob Austin	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2
Rob Saunders	126	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	0	0
Roma Boutilier	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2
Scott Babcock	126	2	1	1	0	2	0	0	0	0
Scott Laird	126	2	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1
Steve Sharkey	126	2	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1
Steve Smith	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Steve W. Smith	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Steve Webber	126	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Tim Breukers	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Tim Hanika	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2
Tony Peniuk	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Tyson Berkenstock	126	2	0	1	1	2	0	0	0	0
Walter Stutzel	126	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2
Wendy Reifel	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Yael Woodward	126	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Aaron Boles	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Aaron Coulter	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Al D’Alessandro	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Alex Benjestorf	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Allyn Harvey	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Amaro Lozano	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Andre Paquin	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Andy Beech	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Anita Painter	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Aren Knudsen	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Aron Lee	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ashley Campbell	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Barry Hamilton	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Barry Watchorn	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Benard Simoneau	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Beth Newton	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Betty Gage	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Bill Monaghan	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Bill Ridge	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Blair Belton	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Blair Howell	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Bob Barrett	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Bob Hall	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Bob Hirte	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Bob Mitchell	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Brenda Gunn	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Brenda McGovern	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Brent Marin	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Britt Hilton	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Brodie Doherty	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Bruce Preston	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Bryan Rickert	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Bryce Cockburn	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Burton Wright	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Cameron Trace	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Carol Beaudoin	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Carol Seable	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Cathy Moulton	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Celeste Howard	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Chad Mergaert	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Chad Prystupa	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Charlene Murphy	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Chris Fawbert	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Chris Perreault	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Chris Plamondon	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Chris Sheilds	220	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
Cindy King	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Clayton Stoner	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Cliff Doerksen	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Constance Kretz	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Cory Albrecht	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Cyena McIntosh	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Dan Babchuck	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Dan Hatch	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Dan Heaven	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Dan Hryhoryshen	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Dan York	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Daphne Frost	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Darrel Tomlinson	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Darrell Mustard	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Daryl Mackie	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Dave Clarke	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Dave Gilson	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Dave Lavigne	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Dave Mackie	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Dave Nutt	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Dave Roemer	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Dave White	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
David Ewart	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
David Nutt	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
David Richter	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Davin Saunders	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Dawn Hamilton	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Dean Benjestorf	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Del Kyle	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Denise Mitchell	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Diana Clowes	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Diane Moore	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Dick Nakamura	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Don Nicholas	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Don Poty	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Don Syroid	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Donna Garber	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Doug Rippingale	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Doug Robinson	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Drews Driessen-Van Der Lieck	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Dustin Marsh	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Dwayne Mustard	220	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
Dwayne Smith	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Dyson Ivanisko	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Ed Henri	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ed Hinkey	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Ed Sharkey	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Ed Walker	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Elise Mah	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Eric Baikie	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Eric Christian	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Eric Cooper-Smith	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Eric Mainprize	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Eugene Berkey	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Eugene Titus	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Evan Hughes	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Forrest Owens	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Frances Cowen	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Francois Charron	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Frank Grasmann	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Frank Green	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Frank Greens	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Gael Arthur	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Gail McIntosh	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Garry Smith	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Gary Lawson	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Gary Phillips	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Gary Scales	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Gary Stotts	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Gary Tietzmann	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Gaylia Meitzen	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Geary Putt	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Gene Kneece	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Geordie Dunstan	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
George Deagle	220	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
Gerry Mathiasen	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Ginny Harrington	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Glen Daradics	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Glen Johnson	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Glen McIntosh	220	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
Glenn Grycan	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Gordon Chu	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Gordon Cockburn	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Graeme Bull	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Grant Luscombe	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Grant Rosswarne	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Grayden McInnes	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Greg Main	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Harry Hemphill	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Heather Cornfield	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Hilford Burton	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Holly Davis	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ian Murphy	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Ivan Ferenc	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Jack Isbister	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
James Newman	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Jan Debruyn	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Jane Campbell	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Janeen Griffith	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Janice Tanche	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Janice Thorburn	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Jaret Knowles	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Jason Dault	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Jeff Forsythe	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Jeremy Morrow	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Jerry Strelioff	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Jim Busselle	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Jim Dodd	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Jim Mitchell	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Joel Dunstan	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Joey Coello	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
John Bentham	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
John Mannion	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
John Payne	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
John Plant	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
John Robinson	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Judi Spiers	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Judy Herder	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Julian Lee	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Julie Glaspy	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Justin Miller	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Justin Nairn	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Kalla Shields	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Kalyn Sutherland	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Karen Edinger	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Karin Maier	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Karl Kirkham	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Karren Hutton	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Kathy Klaus	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ken Hamer	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ken Kishiuchi	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ken Murakami	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ken Whiddington	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Ken Wilson	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Kent Moeller	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Keony Magnan	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Kevin May	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Kevin Winiski	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Kim Cornfield	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Laine McCarthy	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Lanett Barker	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Larry Dalziel	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Laurie York	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Lawrence Ranger	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Lee Watson	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Leeann Kruse	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Leslie Stapley	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Linda Barrett	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Lindsay Laverdure	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Lisa Nicholas	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Liz Cookson	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Lyle Unwin	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Lyndon Duke	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
MacKenzie Collins	220	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
Mark Dobos	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Mark Gage	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Mary McKim	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Mathias Mueller	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Maureen Dionne	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Michael Hives	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Michael Moscovich	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Mick Pomeroy	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Mike Finn	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Mike Gage	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Mike Ives	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Miles Latrace	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Montagu Lee	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Myriam Belisle	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Nathan Boutilier	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Neil McLennan	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Norman Poole	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Owen Lagos	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Pat Jeffrey	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Pat Nelson	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Patty Brown	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Paul Brown	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Pelle Wybenga	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Perry Desbois	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Peter Britain	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Phil MacNeill	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Phil Vanbourgondien	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Phillip MacNeil	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Quentin Dodd	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Quinn Small	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Racho Jordanov	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Raeya Mackie	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Ray Barriault Jr.	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Reaya Mackie	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Reenie Wolfe	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Reg Mackenzie	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Reid Mitchell	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Rich Fryer	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Richard Baker	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Richard Cuddeford	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Richard Johns	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Rick Dionne	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Rick Eriksen	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Rick Sambrook	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Rick Tillapaugh	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Rob King	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Rob MacDougall	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Rob Nugent	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Rob Rowden	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Rob Spiers	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Rob Turko	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Robi Gareau	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Roland Hilton	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Ron Gunn	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ron Herder	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Ron Perkins	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ross Whitmore	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Rowen Berkey	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Roy Dunbar	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Russel Sawchyn	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Russell Motion	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Ruth Heck	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ryan Brown	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Ryan MacPhee-Gerl	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Ryan Newton	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Sally Kerr	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Sally Rickert	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Sarah Deagle	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Sayer Roberts	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Scott Campbell	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Scott Isbister	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Sean Batty	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Sean Rankin	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Shamra McClellan	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Shane Roberts	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Sheila Barriault	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Shirley Briley	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Shirley Murray	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Sonny Boon	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Sophie Cameron	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Stanley Harkof	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Stephanie Sprout	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Stephen Isbister	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Stephen Notley	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Steve Mitchell	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Steve Quintrell	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Steve Vandop	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Sue Berger	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
TJ Nelson	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Tanner Stolle	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ted Maynard	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Tejay Delcasino	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Teresa Robinson	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Terri Sambrook	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Terry Blasco	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Terry Carr	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Terry Sambrook	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Tim Gudewill	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Todd Beadle	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Todd Campbell	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Todd Stewardson	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Tom Barrow	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Tom Dennis	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Tom Hooge	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Tom Kirkham	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Tony Anderson	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Tony Harvey	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Travis Uzzell	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Trevor Erickson	220	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Trygg Carlson	220	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
Warren Barker	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Warren Howe	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Wes Sewell	220	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Will Duguid	220	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Will Stout	220	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1

3. What do we know about CR Chinook?

(* more like what have others learned about Chinook in the Campbell, I don’t know much).

There has been a lot of information collected on Campbell River Chinook Salmon, including from Tyee Salmon captured in the Tyee Pool, however, most of this data is not readily available online. Data that is available (and that I have found) is summarized below. Data and study results from other systems have also been included for comparison and emphasis.

3.1. Quinsam vs. Campbell

• The vast majority of Chinook Salmon returning to the Campbell River system are from the Quinsam River. Based on available escapement data for both systems, a mean of 12.5% Chinook returning to the system are from the Campbell River (varies from 6% to 25% between 1991 and 2019).

Figure 9: Chinook Salmon escpaement in the Campbell and Quinsam rivers from 1991 to 2021.

3.2 Tyee Club Data (presented by Campbell River Salmon Foundation)

• The origin of fish captured in the tyee pool was determined by examining coded wire tags in adipose clipped fish and otoliths in non-clipped fish captured between 2015-2018 CRSF 2018. This data suggests the majority of captured fish in the pool (including undersize) are from the Quinsam Hatchery (mean = 61% across all years), followed by the Discovery Passage Seapens (mean = 17% across all years). The remaining 6% of fish are intercepted on route to natal streams (e.g. Big Qualicum, Nitinat, Washington State hatcheries).

• Despite 79% of all captured fish having an adipose fin, only 16% were actually wild and not of hatchery origin. Meaning most hatchery fish were not visually marked (but did have thermal otolith marking), which is not surprising given resources required for fin clipping.

• Ages calculated from a subset of otoliths of fish captured in the tyee pool between 2015-2018 (n = 48) shows that the majority of fish are Age-4 (overall mean = 75%), followed by Age-5 (17%) and Age-3 (8%). No Age-6 fish were identified in the sub-sample of heads that were aged.

• Of the 350 fish captured in the Tyee pool between 2015 and 2018, 26% were Tyee salmon (n = 90). However, this varied between years with Tyee representing 18% to 32% of all fish captured between years.

3.2 Spawn Timing

• Chinook spawning occurs from late September through early November and peaks in mid-October. Spawners typically reside in the river for ~12 days.

3.3 Age Class Structure

• A roughly equal proportion of spawners return to the Campbell River as age-4 and age-5 fish (see Table 1) Sturham et al. 1999. Very few fish return as Age-6 (1% (1 of 99 fish) of Campbell River fish in Sturham dataset.

• However, Ewart & Anderson,2013 report that Age-5 fish were dominant in 2012 (61%), with Age-4’s accounting for only 37% of the run, and age-3’s representing only 2%. Age-6 fish were absent from the 2013 dataset.

3.4 Size-at-Age

• I have not found any measures of individual fish. But binned data from Sturham et al. 1999 (see Table 1) shows that Age-3 fish were between 500 mm and 699 mm (mean = 595 mm), Age-4 fish generally range in size from 550-949 mm (mean ~ 780 mm) and age-5 fish range from 700-949 mm (mean ~ 840 mm). Age-6 fish were identified, but accounted for less than 1% of all fish in the Campbell (n = 1 fish, 930 mm).
• Fish in the Quinsam River are comparable in size to those in the Campbell, though hatchery fish generally return at a smaller size than their wild counterparts in the Campbell and Quinsam. Sturham et al. (1999) data suggest Age-4 and Age-5 wild fish may exceed 900 mm, while only Age-5 hatchery fish are likely to exceed 900 mm.

Table 4. Size at age of Chinook Salmon captured in Campbell River watershed from Sturham et al. 1999

Waterbody	Age	n	% of Total	Size Range <br>(mm)	Mean Lenght <br>(mm)
Campbell River	3	6	7.8947368	500 - 699	595.0
Campbell River	4	34	44.7368421	550 - 949	779.5
Campbell River	5	35	46.0526316	700 - 949	842.5
Campbell River	6	1	1.3157895	900 - 949	930.0
Quinsam Hatchery	3	76	20.2127660	400 - 749	619.5
Quinsam Hatchery	4	225	59.8404255	550 - 899	743.5
Quinsam Hatchery	5	73	19.4148936	700 - 949	834.0
Quinsam Hatchery	6	2	0.5319149	750 - 849	784.0
Quinsam River	3	46	22.7722772	500 - 849	663.0
Quinsam River	4	114	56.4356436	550 - 949	733.5
Quinsam River	5	40	19.8019802	700 - 949	818.0
Quinsam River	6	2	0.9900990	800 - 849	838.0

Interesting side notes on recent studies examining trends in size of Chinook salmon.

• Lewis et al. 2015 report that the size and age of Chinook returning to Alaska over the past 30-years has been decreasing and speculate that size-selective fisheries may be driving earlier maturation and declines in size (emphasis on speculate, they also point out that marine conditions and competition could produce similar results).
• Ohlberger et al. 2018 built on this work and showed that there has been a reduction in the proportion of older Chinook age classes throughout most regions of the East Pacific and that length-at-age of older fish has decreased while length-at-age of smaller fish has increased.
• Oke et al. 2020 state that relative to salmon maturing before 1990, adult Chinook salmon now produce 16% fewer eggs, transport 28% less nutrients and have lost 21% of their fisheries value.
• Malick et al. 2023 reviewed 25 years of broodstock data from 43 hatcheries and found evidence of a significant reduction in length (and fecundity).

3.5 Fecundity

• According to Ewart & Anderson (2013), female Chinook returning to the Campbell River in 2012 carried roughly ~5,700, a decrease from the roughly 6,000 eggs typically carried.

• Decreasing fecundity rates have also been reported in larger studies. For example, Malick et al. 2023 compiled 2.5 decades worth of broodstock data from 43 hatcheries to examine trends in fecundity. They found significant declines in fecundity (and length), with the greatest drop in fecundity occurring over the past decade. This reduction in fecundity was primarily explained by a reduction in the size of spawners. Not particularly relevant, but they also estimate that a 1 mm reduction in length results in ~7.8 few eggs per female

3.6 Juvenile Life History

• Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Campbell River have been studied intensively since 2015 (e.g. Thornton et al. 2022. These data suggest fry emerge in February-March and that nearly all Campbell River Chinook out migrate as Age-0+ juveniles from March through July. Smaller recently emerged Age-0+ fry are dominant and typically captured from March through early May (37 to 52 m). The remaining fish emigrate as slightly larger Age-0+ smolts (~64 to 88 mm) from May through July.

3.7 Estimated Juvenile Production

• Estimates of juvenile Chinook production based on numbers of observed spawners have generally been less than numbers trapped throughout the out-migration period (Thornton et al. 2022), suggesting juvenile survival rates may be above average (e.g. >10%).

• Juvenile survival was very low in both 2014 and 2016, which may be due to unusually high flows during spawning and/or incubation periods in each year.

3.8 Estimates of Marine Survival

• Marine survival of unfed fry released from the Quinsam hatchery range from 0.2% to 0.4% (yes, that is less than 1%) (Ewart & Anderson 2013).

• However, based on data from Welch et al. 2020, survival of coded wire tagged chinook in the Quinsam ranged from a low of 0.056% in 2007 to a high of 3.3% in 1977, with an overall mean of 0.74%. Mean survival since 2000 is lower (0.28%, 0.56% to 0.56%). These estimates are generally within the range of other hatchery released sub-yearling populations within the straight of Georgia (see image below using data from Welch et al. 2020).

Figure 10: Survival of coded wire tagged Chinook sub-yearlings (Age-0 upon release) released from hatcheries throughout the Strait of Georgia, including the Quinsam River. Note that y-axis is log transformed to better see range of values (labels are actual values). Figure prepared using data prepared by Welch et al. 2020

• Welch et al. 2018 used coded-wire tag data to look at large scale patterns of Chinook salmon survival. This data demonstrates that survival collapsed over the past half century by a factor of ~3 and is currently ~1% in many regions (consistent with estimates available for the Campbell). Survival in relatively pristine and undeveloped regions (e.g. Northern BC and Alaska) was comparable to areas with extensive water management and land development that were previously considered to have poorest survival (e.g. Columbia River). The authors suggest the widespread trends in survival may be evidence that marine conditions are more influential than local factors (e.g. freshwater habitat).

• Similar trends have been observed in other species. For example, Price et al. 2021 found a 69% reduction in wild Sockeye salmon returns (though overall returns are comparable to historic levels due to intensive enhancement); that population diversity has decreased by ~70%, and; that life history diversity has shifted with populations now migrating from freshwater earlier and remaining at sea for longer.

3.9 Catch and Release Mortality

When a fish is hooked, it undergoes stress and physiological responses which vary by species, sex and even fish size (see [Patterson et al. 2017]https://www.fecpl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/CSAS-FRIM-RESDOC-A-2017_010-eng.pdf) for a fantastic review of exactly what happens to a fish when it is being captured and how different factors such as species, sex, condition, water quality, predators etc. may influence mortality rates). While working with David Patterson, Steve Cooke and Scott Hinch’s teams on this study I developed an analogy to try to convey what a fish experiences when it is captured. It’s intentionally dramatic and usually goes something like this:

• Consider a situation where you are walking down the street, you see a street vendor with a sign that says free donuts. The donuts look kinda funny but you are hungry and really like donuts, so you decide to take one. As you take your first bite you feel a shooting pain through your face and your mouth fills with blood. You have been hooked by the donut vendor and he is trying to pull you into a dark grungy alley. You obviously freak out, you yell and scream and try to sprint away as fast as you can. But you can’t break free, you are able to pull some rope out of the vendors hands but he eventually pulls it back in. You fight and fight to get away. Your whole body starts to burn because of the lactic acid that has built up from trying to get away. Eventually it is too much. You are exhausted, your muscles stop working and you can no longer fight to get away. You collapse and all you can do is gasp for air. The vendor eagerly drags your exhausted body into the filthy alleyway where he is waiting. He grabs you by the throat and pushes your face into a bucket of water. He holds it there for 0.5 to 3 minutes while he takes pictures he thinks will impress his friends on Facebook. The vendor uses pliers to cut and pull the hook out of your face - being careful not to damage his precious hook or donut. He may decide to put you out of your misery by hitting you in the head with a baseball bat, or he may just take your head out of the bucket and leave you on the ground so he can go entice someone else with his fake donut.

I personally don’t think I would survive this scenario. If I did, survive I would likely not leave my couch for days while I recovered and would be terrified to eat anything. I would also likely eat fewer apple fritters from Steiner’s. Fortunately, fish seem to be stronger and more resilient than me (and there aren’t (m)any donut vendors luring perpetually hungry sugar addicts into dark alleys).

Trying to get an estimate of capture and release mortality is extremely difficult and results from a single study are unlikely to be representative of all areas, fisheries, or seasons. [Cox-Rogers et al. 1999]https://psf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Download-PDF436-1.pdf completed a review of studies looking at mortality rates of marine captured and released Coho and Chinook in BC, WA, OR and CA. They report:

• Mortality rates range from ~5% to over 30% and vary by gear type/angling method, fight duration, species, size and age, season and a myriad of other factors and recommend that the estimate of 15% mortality for captured and released Chinook applied across BC is not appropriate as it is not representative of all fisheries, does not include drop-off or long-term mortality. In addition, they state:

• The authors state that active fisheries (E.g. trolling) are likely to have lower mortality rates than passive fisheries (E.g., mooching).

• In BC, net pens were used to hold Chinook captured in recreational troll fisheries (using hootchies and flashers on downriggers) for 72 hrs to assess post-release mortality (Gjernes 1990, in Cox-Rogers et al. 1999). They report an overall mortality rates of 9.9%, but showed that mortality was size dependent: with mean mortality of 8.2% for 45-62 cm fish and 13.6% for fish >62 cm. Hooking location appeared to be a major predictor of survival, with lower survival among fish that sustained injuries to major blood vessels associated with gills and heart.

Take-away from this is that post-release mortality rates are likely higher for:

• Larger fish than smaller fish;
• Fish that fight to a point of complete exhaustion (vs fish that are captured and released quickly);
• Fish that spend more time out of water prior to release;
• Fish that are deep hooked or hooked in the gills.
• Plus many other factors (season, water temperature, water quality, predator abundance, etc.)

When considered in the context of the Tyee pool, I would expect mortality to be higher than average given the size of fish and light tackle. However, even if mortality is 30%, that is still 70% less than mortality rates for fish that are kept - as Yari says, “100% of bonked fish are dead.” If all Tyee captured to date in the pool had been released it is very likely that there would be more large fish returning to the pool each year. However, switching to a strictly catch and release fishery would require larger conversations about the ethics of harming an animal purely for sport.

3.10 Hatchery Influence and Population Status

• Ewart & Anderson 2013 report that 56% of the otoliths examined from 2012 spawners showed no signs of hatchery marking and are assumed wild. The remaining 44% are presumed to have originated from instream incubators (31%), seapen released smolts (4%) and Quinsam River released smolts (9%).
• Assuming data presented by Sturham et al. 1999 is representative of the overall Quinsam population, we can assume hatchery origin fish make up 62% of Age-3 fish, 66% of Age-4 fish, 65 of Age-5 fish and 50% of Age-6 fish.

Interestingly, hatchery releases have never been higher

• Ruggerone & Irvine 2018 show that intensive enhancement has resulted in the greatest abundance of salmon in the ocean than ever before (specifically pink, sockeye and chum) and that marine carrying capacity may have been reached within recent decades.
  
• Nelson et al. 2019 present evidence that hatchery practices have altered size and time that juveniles are released and have reduced diversity of life history traits (e.g. size, age and timing of smoltification). The authors argue that current enhancement practices may release fish at a time and size that is preferred by predators (e.g. all fish being released at same time and size and are easy pickings for large aggregations of predators).

3.11 Ocean Range

• Tagging studies have shown that maturing Chinook of BC origin are frequently located in Southeast Alaska, the west coast of Haida Gwaii and west and north coasts of Vancouver Island Myers et al. 1996 (see screenshot of map from Myers et al. 1996, below).

.

3.12 Exploitation Rates

• Approximately 17% of fish released by the Quinsam hatchery are intercepted in Southeast Alaska commercial net (4.99%) and troll fisheries (11.95%) while an additional 1.84% that are intercepted in Alaskan sport fisheries Rosenberger et al.2022.
• A court ruling in May 2023 almost shut down the 2023 SE Alaska troll fishery. Unfortunately for those aspiring to join the Tyee Club (and Orcas), that decision was reversed in late June, 2023 and the fishery occurred from July 1 to 12, 2023, not sure whether it will resume again at a later date.
• I have not found any data reporting exploitation rates of Campbell/Quinsam Chinook within BC commercial and sport fisheries, however, given locations where maturing BC Chinook salmon are typically encountered and presumed migration routes, I think its reasonable to assume that these fish are intercepted by sport and commercial fisheries in North Coast Vancouver Island, Haida Gwaii and along the west and southwest coast of the Island. Without data to

4. What could be affecting returns and catches?

Off the top of my head, there are four things that are most likely to be affecting catches of Tyee salmon (in reality, there are many, many more. But for now let’s start with this).

4.1. Juvenile recruitment

Generally, juvenile recruitment refers to the process of small fish transitioning to an older life stage (e.g., an egg hatching into an alevin, a fry becoming a parr or smolt, a smolt maturing into an adult…). According to Thornton et al. 2022 Campbell River Chinook fry emerge in February-March and out migrate as Age-0+ juveniles from March through July. Smaller recently emerged Age-0+ fry are dominant and typically captured from March through early May (37 to 52 m) While larger Age-0+ smolts are less common and move out from May through July (64 to 88 mm). Given that Chinook move to the estuary as fry, lets figure out how many fish should be produced each year. To do this, we need to know:

• The number of females that return to spawn. Sturham et al. 1999) report that ~60% of Chinook returning to the Campbell River are female. So multiplying the annual escapement values by 0.6 will give us total number females per year. + The number of eggs that each female deposits, which according to (Ewart & Anderson, 2013) has been close to 6,000 eggs-per-female, but now may be closer to 5,700 eggs-per-female.
• The number of females that spawn successfully. I have no data, so lets assume 100% of females that make it to the river will spawn.
• The number of eggs that hatch and the number of alevin that survive and emerge from gravel as fry. For ease, we will assume that 10% of eggs will survive the egg-to-fry stage.

So under normal conditions we could expect to see annual fry production ranging from 42,066 to 616,967, with a mean of 271,962 fry.

But abnormal is the new normal, so let’s look at the extremes. High flows through the incubation period can greatly reduce survival by scouring away gravel and eggs. Thornton et al. 2022 observed this in 2016 when very few Chinook (or other salmon) fry out migrated following a large spill event in November 2016 (and to a lesser extent in 2014).

If we assume that flows over 375 cms reduce fry out migration by 90% we see that fry production in years with high flow events is greatly reduced, which will have significant effects on future returns (Note that I have no idea what flows are required to scour gravels in the Campbell or what associated mortality would be, this is purely speculative. AND, mortality rates are likely to vary relative to flow (e.g., 375 cms may result in 75% mortality, 500 cms produces 85% mortality and 600+ results in 90% mortality). If we apply this assumption, we get the figure below, which shows how high flows may reduce juvenile recruitment.

Although major flow event that reduces egg-to-fry survival will reduce escapement, there is a silver lining. Given the age structure of Campbell River Chinook, the resulting reduction in escapement will be spread across multiple years. Arguably, this is a great example of bet-hedging. If all fish returned as Age-5 fish (which would be advantageous biologically since larger fish produce more eggs), then a high flow event could essentially wipe out a full cohort. Having a population returning at different ages ensures that fish return each year, even if something reduces survival of a single age-class or cohort.

Figure 11: Estimated annual Chinook Salmon fry production in the Campbell River, peak flows during incubation period and estimated impacts of high flow events throughout the incubation period.

Well, I am already going out on a limb here. Key takeaway here is that high flow events during sensitive spawning and incubation periods are likely to have a detrimental effect on juvenile survival, which in turn will contribute to a reduction in the number of Tyee that I fail to catch. But, an event that reduces survival will in a single year will not wipe out the run as fish are returning at different age classes.

4.2. Marine Survival

Overall, Ewart & Anderson, 2013 have estimated marine survival in the Campbell River system is approximately 0.003.

Coded wire tag data reviewed by Welch et al. 2022 marine survival of Quinsam Chinook released as fry from 1974 to 2014 ranged from 0.056% in 2007 to 3.3% in 1977, with an overall mean of 0.74% (2014 release group was 0.55%, which is best it has been since survival rate since 1998).

. This stuff is all way more complicated than I want to get into. For now I will pretend that marine survival stable (spoiler, they are not).

4.4. Fishing effort and catchability

For now, I am going to assume effort (# of boats fishing per tide/day) is constant and that catchability (percent of Tyees present that are captured) is stable. In reality, I would guess that effort has likely decreased over time and catchability has likely increased as peoples knowledge, skill and fishing technology have improved over time (not everyone though, I still suck). Either way, without some hard data there is not much I can do with this.

4.5. Environmental Conditions during the Tyee Season

Tyee fishermen may be among the toughest of tough (cough, cough), but even so, windy, wet seasons are likely to result in lower effort and fewer fish than relatively drier, calmer seasons. It is also possible that fish behaviour will change in response to river conditions. Certainly there was a lot of speculation that high flows during the 2022 Tyee season contributed to record low catches.

For now, I have little interest in combing through historic weather data. But, I already have flow data. So let’s see how river flows have varied between seasons.

• 7.9% of fish will return as Age-3, 44.7% of fish will return as Age-4 fish, 46.1% will return as Age-5 fish and 1.3% will return as Age-6 fish (Sturham et al. 1999).

• All fish captured in the Tyee pool are actually from the Campbell system.

We can expand this to estimate the number of Tyee salmon that will return if we make even more assumptions!

• For fun, let’s assume all fish > 900 mm are Tyee Salmon (I know girth is important too, but I dont have girth data) and using the (Sturham et al. 1999) data as a rough guide I will assume that 10% of Age-4 male adults are >900 mm, 25% of Age-5 fish (males and females) are >900 mm and 75% of Age-6 fish are >900 mm.

5. What explains the variability between years?

Note, this is where shit is going to get weird. At this point I am mostly just making shots in the dark and everything should be considered very skeptically.

Off the top of my head there are a couple ways we can approach this:

1.) How many fish should come back based on past on escapement counts and available biological data. Basically, this is just making a bunch of estimates about survival at different life stages and then comparing our predicted returns to what actually returned. It won’t actually tell us anything, but is a fun exercise.

2.) We can look at what factors influenced how many fish were available for capture in the Tyee pool (i.e. how historic conditions may have contributed to observed captures), and/or;

3.) We can look at what factors influenced how returning fish were captured (i.e. conditions during the fishing season).

5.1 How many fish should come back?

We can VERY CRUDELY estimate the number of salmon that should return to the Campbell River if we make a couple of big assumptions:

• Fecundity is ~5,700 eggs per female (Ewart & Anderson, 2013)

• Sex ratios are 60:40 female to male using (Sturham et al. 1999) data for Campbell River.

• Egg-to-fry survival is approximately 0.1, can’t recall where this number came from but its commonly used as a measure of egg-to-fry survival of wild fish (compared to 0.9 for hatchery reared fish). Give results from Thornton et al. 2022 it is likely that egg-to-fry survival in the Campbell is higher.

• Marine survival (smolt to adult) is approximately 0.003 (Ewart & Anderson, 2013)

• 7.9% of fish will return as Age-3, 44.7% of fish will return as Age-4 fish, 46.1% will return as Age-5 fish and 1.3% will return as Age-6 fish (Sturham et al. 1999).

• All fish captured in the Tyee pool are actually from the Campbell system.

We can expand this to estimate the number of Tyee salmon that will return if we make even more assumptions!

• For fun, let’s assume all fish > 900 mm are Tyee Salmon (I know girth is important too, but I dont have girth data) and using the (Sturham et al. 1999) data as a rough guide I will assume that 10% of Age-4 male adults are >900 mm, 25% of Age-5 fish (males and females) are >900 mm and 75% of Age-6 fish are >900 mm.

If we run these numbers, each female will generate 1.7 offspring, of which 0.14 will be Age-3, 0.76 will be Age-4, 0.79 will be Age-5 and 0.022 will be Age-6. Furthermore, each female will produce 0.24 Tyee salmon. Let’s take a moment to remember that these assumptions are terrible. Larger fish are more likely to produce larger fish, so in reality some fish will produce a decent number of Tyee and others will produce none. But let’s keep it simple for now and assume every fish is able to make an equal number of Tyees

Based on this, each female should produce 1.7 offspring that return to spawn. Which is less than ideal.

Figure 12: Predicted returns of Campbell River Chinook by age-class relative to measured escapement (does not include Quinsam River fish).

Well that’s interesting. There are periods when my predicted returns closely align with actual escapement (most closely from 2003 to 2007, but my values are comparable from 2003 to 2010). This suggests my estimates may not be WAY off but does not confirm they are correct. Other notes:

• Also clearly periods when my predictions are off! Most notably from 1998 to 2002, 2011-2012, 2014 and 2019 to 2022.
• There are number of years where something appears to have happened and fish simply did not return (2005, 2011, 2014).
• There are also years where something positive appears to have happened and far more fish than expected returned to the river (1999 to 2001, 2020).

5.2 How many tyee should be returning?

Let’s look at little closer at how many Tyee salmon may be returning in a given year.If all Tyee salmon were captured each year, we would be actively selecting against large fish, so we would expect to see a rapid and continuous decline in the total number of Tyees returning each year (which I suppose we are). But, I have had the opportunity to snorkel the Campbell River canyon a number of times and have seen spawning Tyee, and in 2022 there were lots of Tyee captured in the river… but that was likely due to higher than usual flows throughout the season. Anyways, all this to say that its unlikely every Tyee is captured in the pool, and the actual number returning to the pool should be at least equal to or higher than the number captured.

Among anglers who have been involved in the club for a long time it is generally believed that most Tyee are Age-6. And it would make sense that larger fish are larger because they spend an extra year in the ocean. If this is the case, then my assumptions below are totally out to lunch (quite likely) as Sturham et al. 1999 data suggest that Age-6 fish represent less than 1% of the total return to the Campbell and Quinsam systems.

Reminder of key assumptions in the plot:

• 10% of Age-4 fish will return as Tyee.
• 25% of Age-5 fish will return as Tyee.
• 75% of Age-6 fish will return as Tyee.

Figure 13: Comparison of catches of Tyee Salmon, predicted returns of Tyee Salmon and annual Chinook Salmon escapement counts.

Well, this figure either shows how poor my estimates are, or that a tremendous number of Tyee are intercepted (e.g. marine survival of Tyee salmon is lower than other fish).

Figure 14: Chinook Salmon escapement from rivers on East and West Coast of Vancouver Island.

Well, that figure sucks. But it shows how variable escapement is between years. On the East Coast of the Island, abundance increased in 43% of plotted streams and decreased in all others. Decreases

Relative to 2013, abundance in all plotted west coast streams was slightly reduced in 2014. There was a major crash in the Burnam River, but this is exaggerated by unusually high returns in 2013, 2015 and 2016.